A. From June 27, 2018 to February 16, 2019, the Plaintiff was submitted to the disciplinary procedure during which he/she worked as a joint principal as a joint principal from the 37th Group B.

B. On April 8, 2019, the Plaintiff was subject to a disciplinary action for three months of suspension from office due to a violation of the duty to maintain dignity (e.g., sexual harassment, etc.), the duty to maintain good faith, and the duty to maintain dignity (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”).

C. On April 25, 2019, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disciplinary action, and filed an appeal on April 25, 2019. On June 25, 2019, the Military Manpower Discipline Review Committee filed an application for perusal or reproduction of the Plaintiff’s “all records of disciplinary action (excluding personal information, such as the name, resident registration number, date of birth, occupation, address, address, telephone number, family relation, religion, educational background, criminal record, etc. of each of the statements and disciplinary review members)” with respect to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disciplinary action records”) only part of the disciplinary action records against the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff applied for perusal or duplication.

On June 28, 2019, the Defendant made public a partial disclosure of the Plaintiff’s written statement among the instant disciplinary records, and as to the remainder, the Defendant made a partial disclosure of the content that the Plaintiff’s written statement was not disclosed on the ground of the disposition under Article 41(2)1 of the Disciplinary Rules 180 (hereinafter “instant Disciplinary Rules”).

(hereinafter referred to as "disposition in this case"). 【No dispute exists concerning the part in which the non-disclosure was disposed of.” [The grounds for recognition], Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) The Act on the Disclosure of Information by Public Institutions (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) alleged by the Defendant under the statutes on the grounds of the instant disposition

The grounds for a disposition under the main sentence of Article 9 (1) 6 and the grounds for the disposition under the Land Regulations of this case under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes at the time of the disposition of this case cannot be deemed the same factual basis.